As best you can, read through the decisions and come to an understanding of how each side argued their positions on the case. I'm looking for two things. First, your ability to comprehend the arguments and second your ability to analyze it. I'm not looking for personal opinions on the issue. Stick to the material presented.
In the decision, a challenge--a test case--to the constitutionality of Washington DC's gun control laws was accepted by a 5-4 vote. The opinions broke down as follows:
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
As best you can, read through the decisions and come to an understanding of how each side argued their positions on the case. I'm looking for two things. First, your ability to comprehend the arguments and second your ability to analyze it. I'm not looking for personal opinions on the issue. Stick to the material presented.
Click here for the decision in FindLaw.
Additional information can be found on ScotusWiki.
You can find background on the Second Amendment here.
In the decision, a challenge--a test case--to the constitutionality of Washington DC's gun control laws was accepted by a 5-4 vote. The opinions broke down as follows:
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.
Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.